I have no intention of signing up for what is commonly known as Obamacare. It would literally be signing away my life, my freedom and ultimately my ability to receive healthcare; I’m talking death panels. Further I could lose my very identity considering the Internet security issues. It is a human beings duty to refuse to submit to unjust laws as the founding fathers of our great nation made clear in word and deed.
Some eight years ago when I lost my full time job, healthcare for my wife and I would have cost us approximately $1,400/mth. (we both have pre-existing conditions of some kind) In other words, we are the Obamacare target demographic. We could not afford it then and cannot now. Since then prices have gone up drastically. But since we are in an older group of healthcare consumers let us assume that we would be some of the few who would see reductions in healthcare costs, at least in premiums. I have not gone on the site but I have heard many testimonies of the costs from others.
So if we stick with the old figure of $1,400/mth (which if I am wrong it is on the low side) and include a doctor’s visit once a year for my wife and I, part of the deductible, I need approximately $18,000/yr for healthcare. That is more than 50% of our income. As we stand, with expendable income and the money saved if we pay off our house (many many years away) freeing up $2,000 a year in interest, we would have at most $700/mth, or $8,400/yr for healthcare; about 25% of our income. So we would have to be subsidized nearly $10,000/yr (not going to happen) and would have no money for going to movies, out to dinner, bowling or even activities like cycling. We would also have to go back to one car and have no money for home repairs. In other words, Obamacare means less economic stimulus and more lost jobs. Whatever one’s income simply drawing thousands upon thousands of dollars out of each family budget itself will bring financial disaster. My numbers are low if anything. It makes one question what a living wage would be in the Obamacare universe.
Now if I truly get seriously ill and my deductible is $5,000 (again low side) it will cost me $22,000/yr.; nearly two-thirds of our income, year after year until I die, before I get a penny in insurance. That is two-thirds of our income if I am able to continue to work. Best just give me a pain pill.
If I am going to be denied treatment for an illness and must accept death, as an American and free man, I will do it on my terms. I will not turn myself over to the government, in the name of healthcare, and allow them to control every aspect of my life by controlling all my hard earned money, and your as taxpayers who would have to subsidize my healthcare, housing, and food stamps. Currently we take no form of assistance and take the risk of not having healthcare in the hopes to achieve the American dream and break through to prosperity.
I will not conform to this law and not simply because it is economically impossible for me and my wife to afford. Any politician who supports this law is a traitor to this nation and the people, especially those who know better. It is unworkable and financial slavery. It is not difficult to see, for even the lowest information voter. In 2014 no quarter can be given in regards to Obamacare. We must all fight with everything we have to repeal this law.
Or perhaps I could title this one “The End Times, Phil Robertson 5 of 4” as the topics he raised remain front and center; the social degradation of society, particularly concerning sexual morals. A topic Phil Robertson has proven to be a master communicator on.
This last Sunday at church one gentleman brought up billboards put up by a certain Christian denomination embracing homosexuality. To quote the gentleman second hand, though I have seen these billboards myself some time back, the billboard read ‘We don’t care who you love, we still love you.’ If you really believe in Christian teachings the sign really says, “We don’t care if you’re going to hell, we still love you.”
These contrasting phenomenon of mankind coming to a point where the priceless value of each individual is recognized, and the near complete loss of all values or sense of right and wrong, the ability to recognize what is true or not as far as that can be accomplished with a mature educated discerning mind, may appear confusing. It may be called a sign of the end times. Consider with this all the under covered wide-spread infections of HIV, drug resistant bacteria and potentially deadly new forms of the flu, natural disasters and weapons of mass destruction in the hands of extremists, and one may think the world is coming to an end.
Isaac Asimov, in his “Foundation Trilogy”, portrays society collapsing when the foundational base knowledge of the advanced technologies that all civilization is built upon is lost. The ability to repair or reproduce these advanced technologies degrades as this foundational knowledge is lost and eventual the technology becomes unsustainable..
But if we look at the Obamacare website, that has become front and center in the news, as an example it is not loss of base technical knowledge that is bringing down our civilization but a lack of moral knowledge and fortitude. The software developer, CGI Group, was not chosen based on ability. They failed in previous projects of great but lesser magnitude. The private sector offered to do the site for free. Others said they could have done it better for a small fraction of what was and is being charged. Most likely we will be overpaying for updates to this site in perpetuity. Like Solyndra, and other green companies, I suspect much of the fees paid for the healthcare site are being funneled into liberal political causes including the democrat party in the tens of millions of dollars if not more. That is why CGI Group was chosen, for political gain, power, and not for true ability.
And it is not just the government. Yahoo, that takes a liberal political view in total contradiction to the views of its users is sharing the same fate. Whether on guns, homosexuality or politics remarks are ‘liked’ hundreds to even thousands to one in contradiction to Yahoo’s liberal views. Yahoo recently updated their free ‘groups’ function. Included is a new database that does not collate by date. So I put the year first in my 700+ fitness entries (i.e. 13/12/25) and that seemed to work until I went to add a new entry. You cannot simply add a new entry like before. You must edit the entire file. All the entries were scrambled when editing the file. So if I see a problem with one entry and want to edit it and press “edit file” who knows where I’ll find it. The most basic of functions for a database no longer exists on Yahoo.
While the large number of contentious issues may appear confusing it is not confusing at all if you have the right perspective. Let’s take Yahoo for example. I read a Yahoo news article this past weekend, though I have been unable to find it again. The writer for Yahoo was explaining why Phil Robertson’s comments were hate. His reasoning was, because there is no God and homosexuality is a natural activity among species. And it is not a imperfection, which any man of common sense would call it since it hinders reproduction of the species, but a product of evolution; supposed sound science. I still have seen no science in support of homosexuality as a biological reality.
There is the godless, on one side, where there is no right or wrong because there is no God, but only the evolutionary struggles of the survival of the fittest. The ends justify the means, morals that would hinder that are weakness. Plato, in “The Republic” some 2,400 years ago argued ‘in the name of Socrates’ that a government must lie to its people for the greater good, censor all arts and information and control who reproduces and doesn’t. Such ideas inspire the oppressor and have developed into the communism of today.
Then there are the Christians on the other side, where God is an absolute reality. All this confusion is simply the war of ideas and world views, between those who deny God and those who believe in God. Those who deny God have fruits that are rotten and sicken our inner cities. They are wrong and fail because their world view is based on lies. The fruits of Christianity have brought goodness and prosperity to all, embodied in the United States as it was founded.
Christianity has answers to the accusations from the left. Christians profess absolute love especially for one’s enemy and the sinner. So why has Christianity been powerless to defeat the communist/liberal cause? I would suggest because Christianity is wrong on some point where communism is right. I am not talking about homosexuality as a sin. The ideas I will present are not new to the Judeo-Christian tradition but have been rejected by most.
Socialism professes an ideal on this earth. In Christianity there is no ideal until the last day when this world is destroyed. There are always those who will be left behind. What if that is wrong? What if the second coming and the descriptions of the end of the world are simply the end of the evil world and Christ will establish an eternal kingdom on this earth as was intended from the beginning? These are age old teachings that fell out of favor.
It is interesting how revisiting these rejected ideas concerning the end times are taboo to Christians while so many Christians seem willing to reconsider whether homosexuality is a sin or not, though it has never been considered anything but a sin. (Now that is confusing) Where socialism fails enormously for its’ enormous flaws, perhaps Christianity has lost its influence and power for its’ mistaken understandings of where this world is headed. Perhaps the liberals are right on that one point and that is where their power comes from. That is the singular point where liberalism rings true in the hearts of all.
Phil Robertson of “Duck Dynasty” fame has suffered discrimination for what is being called by many hateful words. Rather, he clearly gave the word of God calling sin sin, and lost his job, momentarily, with A&E for it. I claim his words and actions do not come out of any hate or fear, but from love.
Is life eternal? Every civilization that has advanced mankind has had some understanding that life continues for eternity after life on this earth, even those that believed in a multitude of gods. Judaism stood for the one true God amidst these cultures of polytheism and is the foundation for all of western civilization with its prosperity and advancements. Out of that soil rose Christianity which achieved its greatest manifestation in the United States, a nation that has uplifted the entire world whether they are willing to admit it or not. And sin is still sin whether one wants to admit it or not.
The wages of sin is death; eternal damnation. What that means may vary from denomination to denomination but the belief in the eternal nature of life does not vary. It is a perspective that should permeate all of our society, because if life is ultimately eternal it does matter how you live. Respecting such commonly shared truths, apparent in all denominations, is what creates a Judeo-Christian society without establishing a national religion. It is the foundation of a society that respects all religions. It is the foundation of a free society.
When I was a child the idea of being a teenager seemed an eternity away. I never imagined reaching the age of The Monkees and now when I see them on TV I hardly remember what it was like being that young. Something I thought happened five years ago I find is ten or even fifteen years in the past. How will this life be perceived after ten-thousand years in the life after this one? A mere flash. Obviously we should be far more concerned with the eternal nature of our spirits than what recognition one can gain in this world.
Those consumed with pleasures of the flesh generally have little foresight. They can rationalize away and justify any criticism, especially in the light of a free society. They insist that they are in the right and all need to agree with them, and those who disagree are not just wrong but haters. It sounds to me, a simple man hardly perfect myself but one who has kept his face turned towards the one God, that these are the intellectual gymnastics of one trying to override a guilty conscience. That is my perspective gained from a life of personal reflection.
If one views life from the eternal perspective and truly loves his fellow man, all mankind, than how can he not warn those walking the path of sin? Phil Robertson’s words can only be seen as a work of love and concern for his fellow man. If his words make some people feel guilty my advise would be to listen to your conscience and not the one who seeks to drag you to hell, whose words always appear more pleasing.
In the controversy over the words of Phil Robertson few have given him 100% support. Even many who have supported him whole heartedly have taken small steps back for the supposed crude and rude nature of his remarks. The graphic language of homosexuals and liberals on TV have been clearly overlooked in the past. Such language can easily be call crude and rude, not to mention offensive. So… how is one supposed to describe the topic or the actions of the reproductive process of humankind? What terms do we use, to get straight to the point?
Yes, the reproductive process. The most basic drive of all life that keeps the species going. This perspective alone should be enough to put the question to rest over the issue of homosexuality. To date there has been no scientific evidence that homosexuality is natural. Do you want to point to penguins, that reproduce once a year in the harshest environment in the world, where if one male can’t compete and win a female his uncontrollable surging hormones lead him to bang anything dead or alive? A pretty crude topic I would say. Outside of human beings, the reproduction of species is completely driven by biology. (this suggests a design to me) There is no decision making and no difficulty explaining confusions among the animal kingdom for those armed with common sense. No abnormalities, outside of perhaps being inferior to other males, have been documented to explain any actions that would be described as outside the norms. Yes, the norms.
What descriptive language is used in our schools, given to your children in sex ed? The government now wants to start sexual education in kindergarten. What terms are to be used for kindergarteners? How many of us are even aware of the words and descriptions that are being used in our schools? Since homosexuality has been recognized as normal by many local governments and their corresponding school districts, what is the language they are using to an ever younger audience to describe such relationships? What kind of language do they use when distributing condemns and explaining there use?
When I was a child, just past initial puberty (is that word to crude?) my mind was focused one one thing. What is a man to do with a women. Which words were used to describe the proper relationship of man and women, clearly described as confined to marriage, were immaterial. Clearly understanding the workings and purposes were the only thing that would put my mind at ease. Any words, …any words accomplishing that end were neither crude or rude but appreciated.
Phil Robertson was communicating important realities in words that went straight to the point with absolute clarity. His words were neither crude nor rude but informative. These topics need to be addressed, the issues confronted, and there is only one way to do it; in the clearest words possible.
The homosexual movement, by whatever acronyms they want to identify themselves by, wants to claim that the scriptures do not condemn homosexuality. They have been successful in converting many religious denominations to their opinions, making them doctrine. They want to claim that people like Phil Robertson are not being Christian in their words and beliefs. That Christ, Jesus, would never act in such a fashion.
I heard a debate on FOX news over the religious aspect of homosexuality and a Biblical scholar pointed out very clearly how Jesus’ words clearly defined the relationships of one man to one woman as being ordained by God; how things were created to be.
But those who want to convince us that traditional beliefs, built around the realities of sin and how to overcome it, are archaic, decry such beliefs as judgmental and not in line with the spirit and life of Jesus. Somehow Jesus understands and would never condemn anyone, they claim, though all must be aware of Jesus’ words that He came to cast judgment. If you are not aware of such words you have no standing in this debate.
Sin is an affirmative response to temptation, and temptation in the Judeo-Christian sphere originates from Lucifer, or Satan who seeks to put himself above God, laying claim over we His children. Jesus went into the wilderness and fasted for forty days where he was confronted by Satan. He was tempted in hunger with food. He was offered all the pleasures of the world and the world itself, but he rejected all such temptations, upholding God’s dignity and rightful position. And what did He reject all this for? In the end He would face complete betrayal by those he loved and die a horrible death for the sins of mankind.
Jesus is no wall-flower with nothing but sweetness and understanding to bestow on any and all, attributes many want to attribute to Pope Francis. He is a man of iron will who puts God’s word above all else. It is a word that judges, that decides who belongs to God and who belongs to Satan. In listening to those who want to preach anything goes, there is no contention over the spirit of man. There is no accuser, supposed god of this world, who seeks to drag one to hell. Jesus’ three temptations clearly prove otherwise.
And what of Jesus fashioning a whip and driving the money changers out of the temple. Jesus was not only a man of absolute conviction but of great power. I can’t imagine any circumstance where He would not have been stopped if someone could have stopped Him. Jesus did not tolerate perversions of what is meant to be holy and devoted to God. And isn’t that how the majority has institutionalized marriage, as an act of consecrating the union of man and woman as holy and devoted to God?
Where Phil Robertson submits to the word of God, those who would deny its relevance, desiring to alter its meaning, want to point to Jesus as their proof. The reality is, not only Jesus’ words, but His very nature as portrayed in the actions of His life testify against this supposed enlightenment, this pseudo social evolution that would suggest that homosexuality is not a sin.
“Duck Dynasty” is the highest rated show on cable with 12 million viewers, outside of sporting events. The highest rated show on network television is “The Black List” (my favorite broadcast show) with 17 million viewers; just around 5% of the population.
In this war of ideas against this country of the United States, and the Judeo-Christian ethics on which it was founded, the front line is the airwaves. Outside of talk radio, we conservatives continually lament that liberals control the media, AKA mainstream media, sock puppet press, etc. etc.The liberal media in all entertainment mediums continues to put forth a valueless pop culture world view that is undermining the foundations of this nation and ultimately freedom itself.
In this modern age of so many choices, a station can have a hit show with as little as 3% of the population and claim the ideals it professes are representative of the majority. So the minority becomes the majority as long as no one of prominence on the airwaves, in all its various entertainment mediums of talk, song and story (including the news), will tell the public, the low information voter, otherwise.
When I consider “Duck Dynasty” and hear that each family member has an individual contract I wonder if all this was by design; if this controversy over Phil Robertson was preordained. At any rate, many are suggesting that “Duck Dynasty” change networks. I would suggest that they go over to broadcast television. Broadcast television is where the battle for the soul of this nation can be won and let me try to explain why.
If there is any technology that must be declared outdated it is AM radio. Yet AM radio is booming due to conservative talk radio; content that is in demand. Would conservative talk be as populace if one needed to purchase a subscription to listen to it? Radio is available to everyone, every car has one. Most homes still have radios, though some of those may be decades old now.
What happened to “Monday Night Football”? I am sure it gets great ratings but not as high as when they were on broadcast. Now “Sunday Night Football” is growing as the premiere game for the masses.
Further, in this economy, many are and will be ending their cable and satellite service contracts. If the choice is between keeping the cable TV or Internet service, Internet will always win. And now you can get TV over the Internet.
We had no paid television for a long time. As our situation improved and I saw the great variety broadcast TV offered with HD broadcasting I saw no reason to consider cable. Every HD broadcaster now can claim five or more digital stations within their band. There is all the old TV shows one can imagine available for free. We have at least three stations here in Milwaukee that broadcast only movies. PBS has a large variety over five channels, of documentary, British TV, cooking shows, home improvement, news and education programming among other things.
So I looked into TiVo, so I could pick and choose from this great variety and watch on demand. On demand is the trend of the future. TiVo was very expensive in comparison to an Internet TV box. We went with Roku for Internet TV. Now FOX and PBS have their shows available on demand for some time period after broadcast through Roku. All the networks have all their news shows available on demand after broadcast. If every broadcast network provides all their content for on demand viewing via Internet TV devices they will return to dominance and end paid TV as we know it. But… did they ever lose dominance?
Yes, there are many Internet TV stations, or apps as they are called, but there are too many, too amateur and too slipshod. People will revert to what they know and choose all the broadcast network apps along with a handful of Internet station apps that fit their viewing desires. Broadcast television will hold its’ dominant position and then grow in dominance.
What if “Duck Dynasty” went to broadcast? Could it achieve 10%, 20% or even 25% or greater viewership? What if some brave network took up the conservative and/or moral cause and started producing shows that represent the God loving people of this nation and gained 20% plus ratings on a regular basis. No words of others could deny what represents American culture.
Glenn Beck has produced his own network, available for a fee on Roku. Sarah Palin and others have found spots on cable to create their own shows that I am sure will get great ratings. My family, and many others, will never have the opportunity to watch them from our homes. There is a lot of such programming being produced, programming that could reach ratings not seen in forty years if they could be put on broadcast prime time.
Yes, there are many barriers perhaps even with the FCC, but these are fights that need to be fought. Right now Phil Robertson and his hit show “Duck Dynasty” have captured the attentions of the nation. It is time to make a move, to take the offensive.
I have often touched on theological topics, all of Judeo-Christian origin but not always traditional, to show how what we believe, the origins of existence, of evil, and how and why we look to a last days, influences our perspectives. On one of my blogs directed specifically to faith issues, most notably my faith, I commented on the concept of absolute predestination. You can go there by clicking here if you like.
I have mused why historically individuals who have been blessed in their lives and greatly prosperous are apt to profess absolute predestination or in the least tend to focus on verses that suggest predestination as absolute. I have come to the conclusion that the most attractive attribute of absolute predestination is that it is not their fault. That is, as their power and influence holds drastic consequences over the lives of others for both good and bad, they are not responsible for the bad. It was predestined.
Many are asking now in relation to Obamacare, “How can our government do this to us?” Has President Obama no conscience, common sense or sense of duty to the people? Has he no sense of responsibility to rectify what everyone has recognized as a failure that will drive the entire population deeper into economic despair, not to mention the rising national debt that already has doomed the future for our children and grandchildren?
Economic ruin has been the norm in every communist/socialist system. Look at Greece, Italy, Spain and others. Remember why the communist block completely collapsed. So how do communists justify bringing this kind of ruin upon their populations?
Evolution. Evolution is their predestination. There is no creator, everything came about by mere chance, survival of the fittest. Any ideology that includes God, an intelligent source, therefore is blasphemy; the problem and needs to be censored. Those taking more than others is the origin of evil; poverty and oppression. Eugenics, the sacrament of abortion, is all part of the doctrine of the greater good in atheism. The new ruling class, such as Barrack Obama arisen from the oppressed masses (OK, not Obama), the victorious victims over the prosperous are the enlightened. They are the top of the evolutionary chain. Their policies are salvation, and if only all would believe and fall in line, submit, everything would work out.
Obama isn’t the problem. Communism isn’t the problem. The problem is religion, you and me, and all who believe in God, in the sanctity of life and that prosperity is created not taken. If only we would acquiesce to our superiors, the uber prosperous in government, everything would work out. Otherwise the communist doctrine of violent revolution may have to be enacted.
It’s not their fault which makes it absolute.
In regards to education, in many places they receive none and if they do they
risk being maimed or killed. I cannot support the Islamic view on woman. Though
some may point to the word to contradict me, actions speak louder.I am hardly an expert on South Africa though I have spent significant time with people from that nation both black and white. My experience in the Catholic Church and Jesuit institutions may give me a bit more of an insight into Pope Francis than Nelson Mandela. My regular readers may recognize my understanding and knowledge of communism and the Cold War era.
We have two prominent and influential figures, Pope Francis and Nelson Mandela, that embody reconciliation and goodness, never putting themselves above the laws they have committed themselves to. Yet both are a source of confusion. Pope Francis has created an atmosphere of, if not uncertainty surely murkiness around the topics of economics and sexuality.
Nelson Mandela has been an example of reconciliation in what some may rightly or wrongly call a saintly manner. He stood for the rule of law by committing himself to his nation’s Constitution and his understanding that his policies cannot be formed by ideology but by what will work for the people. Still he was a communist who contemplated terrorism before he was imprisoned. His party did commit acts of terror, follows the communist ideology and is poised, if they desire, to institute an oppressive communist regime in South Africa.
Both Pope Francis and Nelson Mandela seem to hold a low opinion of the United States. What is the source of this confusion and the dislike of the greatest nation the earth has ever seen, a nation that has been extremely beneficial to all in the world, by these two prominent individuals?
I would suggest it is communism, in both cases. Nelson Mandela was clearly aligned with the propagation of communism. Cuba worked devotedly in Africa to spread to the communist cause. I have heard tell of piles of literature propagated by North Korea and other nations directed to the leadership of many African nations. In the Popes case he has had to confront communism in South America and among his Jesuit brotherhood. How has communism shaped their views?
Communism professes that ‘this is the way the world is’. The world. Not Argentina or South Africa with their third world backgrounds but the entire world. And communists put forth what they claim are clear answers to solve the problems in this world. Most of Christianity believes the only final solution to the problems in this world is its ultimate destruction in the last days. In other words they don’t have a solution, there will always be those who are left behind. So when you have two people who feel called to address the problems of this world and have both been bombarded with communist propaganda most all their lives we find contradiction and confusion on some level. Why? Because communism is a false and failed ideology. Anything that takes it or any part into consideration in any form will not ring true.
Nelson Mandela, who knew communism clearly and rejected its failed policies, though he seemed committed to its ideals, may hold more credibility than the Pope who obviously is ignorant of communism’s seductive influences. Here in the United States we can see how misdirected and confused what is now being labeled the low information voter is in comparison.
The United States embodies, or did embody Christian ideals formed in a life and death struggle in pursuit of true freedom that comes from God and a vision that it is possible to create an ideal blessed world here on this earth, amidst the untainted wilderness, God’s creation, that spread out before our forefathers. Yet both these fore mentioned men who have great accomplishments for the betterment of humankind cannot conceive the reality of this nation’s goodness and potential.
They cannot perceive that the United States as founded, a Christian nation, stands in contradiction to all communism claims the world to be. Socialist and communist policies in this country are eroding these founding ideals and creating the image of the world communism espouses. Rather than continuous upward mobility by those of every class, a dynamic formerly associated with the United States, socialist policies are creating a permanent underclass of dependence and removing the hope of upward mobility for all but the few; an elite ruling class. The practical reality of all communist nations.
Communism’s ultimate goal is to destroy this nation of the United States as it was founded. That in itself should make communism’s origins clear.
